The manslaughter trial against Alec Baldwin over the fatal shooting of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins has been dismissed. Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer threw out the case over how police and prosecutors treated a handful of bullets, which they failed to turn over to the defence.
“The state is highly culpable for its failure to provide discovery to the defendant,” Judge Sommer said. “Dismissal with prejudice is warranted.” The dismissal came as a surprise as gasps were said to be heard in the courtroom and Baldwin was congratulated by his family and supporters.
More to come…
The bullets were turned over by retired Arizona police officer Troy Teske, who is said to be a close friend of Thell Reed, the father of Rust armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed. Crime scene technician Marissa Poppell accepted the bullets, but they were not inventoried with the Rust case. Some of the rounds Teske handed over were Starline brass casings with nickel primers which matched the ones that killed Hutchins
Withholding that kind of evidence is unconscionable. It tainted the entire investigation. They basically forced the judge to dismiss the case.
Do you think that was intentional? Like was the prosecution paid off?
It looks like the armorer was a local and her dad’s cop buddies hid evidence to try to help her. At least one prosecutor signed off on it, because she testified that she didn’t turn over the evidence because she thought it was irrelevant.
There is no universe where live ammunition recovered from the scene is irrelevant.
Uh, they weren’t recovered from the scene.
The official law enforcement reports were falsified. We don’t know where the bullets they lied about came from. If the police deliberately lied on an official report once, why would you trust the rest of the “official” report?
Courts give law enforcement a lot of blind trust. If you can prove that this trust has been violated, everything they’ve done under that umbrella of trust comes into question.
If it’s this egregious and the prosecutor (s) were okay with it, we don’t even get to have a trial. Why would a fake investigation result in a trial?
The tragedy for the victims is that they’ll never truly know what happened, because the people entrusted with handling the investigation cared more about protecting their own and prosecuting a “Hollywood liberal” than finding out what really happened.
deleted by creator
Yep, you can pull that shit with your average guy with a public defender, but if they have a good lawyer you’ll get caught.
Just shows how there’s a justice system for the wealthy and an incarceration system for the rest of us.
Once it came out that there were live rounds found in other places that were never mentioned until now… yeah that’s not a good look. And while I understand the argument that he’s the producer therefore responsible for anything that happens on set they’d be setting a standard that wasn’t applied in an awful lot of past on set accidents.
Which has nothing to do with this decision. This what about due process by the police, nothing to do with actual fault.
As producer he should still hold the final culpability of anyone and anything on site. It would be like letting the owner of a company walk on a technicality, he’s still responsible in the end.
What about the people who actually committed the crime?
Unless they get off on this due process as well, they would also be accountable. As producer he’s responsible for anyone he hires, if he’s not confident, he should verify their work. Thats what being in charge means. You’re responsible, you can’t just pay someone else and say they are, that’s negligence, since if they failed, you failed in your vetting.
I strongly disagree. You can vet someone properly, they can have good references, work experience and history, then they come in and do something stupid and it still falls on someone else? If they did the appropriate amount of due diligence (and can show that) I don’t see why someone else’s mistake would roll up like that.
Where did I say they wouldn’t be responsible…?
It doesn’t fall on someone else, the person who fucked up is still culpable, it’s just the people that hired them and directed their work ( you can’t be liable if you don’t direct their work it’s how the chain works) can be held liable too.
You can disagree all you want, but why would your boss who directs you not be liable for what they get you to do….? That’s an absolutely asinine take. Your boss tells you to do something unsafe and they just get off since they can’t be responsible…? What…… ?
But now you’re changing your argument. Before you said the producer is responsible for everything that happens on set, and made it sound like the US system is worse for not holding him responsible, but now it’s if he was “directly” in charge of her supervision and didn’t stop her from doing something unsafe, which IS how it works in the US as well, so what have you been complaining about this entire time?
I never changed my argument, yes as owner/producer he’s responsible for anything/anyone on site. That’s what being a producer/owner means, you’re liable for any action your company does or doesn’t do… the states seem to allow multiple ways to separate yourself.
and made it sound like the US system is worse for not holding him responsible,
Uhh… it is, but you also started. Topic that’s entirely different to the article anyways.
but now it’s if he was “directly” in charge of her supervision and didn’t stop her from doing something unsafe,
No, that was the point the entire time, but you are off on a topic unrelated to the article apparantly.
fe, which IS how it works in the US as well, so what have you been complaining about this entire time?
That’s not how it works in the states, like at all… it would be a civil trial, not criminal, wholefully different things. And if it was actually how it worked, he probably wouldn’t get off on a technicality like this…. Can you provide a situation where this has happened in the states? I can provide multiple myself for my country.
You even said in a previous comment it would be an uphill battle… that means there’s not laws and there no precedence, so how can you claim the US in the same? What about all the other people saying the US is different? You seem to be the only one saying the US has these laws, yet you also say how it doesn’t in your additional comment information. So which is it…?
Sorry I thought I was making it clear that the dismissal was due to the negligence of the police, but even if it had gone to trial it was still an uphill battle to claim his responsibility as producer. If the armorer could be proven to have been a bad hire it could have fallen on him, maybe, but if the production could prove that they took reasonable steps to see if she was qualified but were sadly mistaken that would make it hard to prove negligence.
Personally I would rather it had gone to trial and given the full chance under the law to prove innocence or guilt, dismissal with prejudice is not the same thing as a finding of not guilty even if the result is the same.
It’s interesting seeing the law differences, in Canada this would be considered criminal and anyone up to the owner can be held accountable. I think it’s only been used and upheld a few times though.
Edit, looks like it’s been used more since I checked last.
As producer he should still hold the final culpability of anyone and anything on site. It would be like letting the owner of a company walk on a technicality, he’s still responsible in the end.
What you’re describing would be civil liability, not criminal. It would potentially be criminal if a supervisor knew one of their direct reports was doing something illegal and condoned it or did nothing, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here
In Canada it would be criminal and not civil.
It comes down to who has direct authority over someone though iirc.
I bet Canada’s putting a ton of CEOs in jail, right?
The link actually includes everyone who has been charged under the bill if you read it!
So no CEOs in jail, because the only penalty from a criminal conviction under this statute is a fine
And? You seem to have a problem with another country doing better than yours and having some checks and balances. Why are you so upset about this?
It would be like letting the owner of a company walk…
So standard practice
In Canada there’s laws that can hold the owner accountable for stuff like this.
